5 ms·

So far, two comments saying this is grandstanding by the school board. If you replace social media with drugs and high schoolers with homeless people, wouldn't

by xrd 4y ago

So far, two comments saying this is grandstanding by the school board. If you replace social media with drugs and high schoolers with homeless people, wouldn't it be more typical for people to be saying that elected officials aren't doing ANYTHING! What's the difference? I have read enough to know that these social media companies are employing behavioral scientists that are attempting to make their products addictive. And, I believe teenage brains are particularly succeptible. So this doesn't seem like grandstanding to me.

ehhthing 4y ago
I am not a lawyer, but this seems like the school board have no standing (in the legal sense) to be filing this lawsuit. I do not believe that social media companies have the duty of care to the school boards to maintain kids' mental health. Some of the things in the lawsuit are just stupid like arguing that social media causes them to need to do investigations into threats and such. You wouldn't be suing the USPS or AT&T for allowing the same thing, would you? Sure these aren't the same thing as social media, but whether a duty of care exists should be a relatively similar analysis.
- poulsbohemian 4y ago
  >seems like the school board have no standing That was exactly my reaction. If Bob Ferguson (WA AG) wanted to pursue such a case, he / the state would have standing - and as far as I know, the school board asking the state and getting other school boards involved in such a case would be the more powerful approach. This is Seattle though, with its particular political leanings, and/or it could also be a bit of a Hail Mary - do this to show frustration in hopes that the AG or similar parties will take action.
  - DueDilligence 4y ago
    .. chiming in: Bob has indeed been looped in since this suit was on the table four years ago - and participated in person to the 3 meetings where this suit was on the agenda. I have heard his comments and discussion first hand. I know there to be at least two of his staff handling this suit. It is common for these types of well-executed lawsuits where the named-party is a public entity - for the relevant legislative office to NOT present a public statement until several weeks after filing the suit. I can assure you that the AG or representative thereof, will do so in the coming weeks.
    - poulsbohemian 4y ago
      Doesn't surprise me given his previous suit against Facebook (IE: The reach of social media is an active concern of the state). Likewise, Bob and I have mutual friends and this very much sounds like the kind of thing he'd have the pulse on. For that matter, it sounds like you have some hands-on info here - maybe you and I run in the same meatspace circles ;-D.
- EarlKing 4y ago
  Literally this. You'd have to twist yourself into a legal pretzel to somehow claim that because teachers act in loco parentis for children in their care that now somehow their supervisors have power of attorney over their charges. This is one of those cases where the idiots involved deserve to get hit with a huge fine for filing a frivolous lawsuit. No, not the school district, but those involved. Personally.
  - shkkmo 4y ago
    How does "power of attorney" have any relevance here? The argument is simply that the school district has suffered damages from specific behavior by the social media companies, that has nothing to with an ability to make decisions on the student's behalf.
    - tomsthumb 4y ago
      >How does “power of attorney” have any relevance here? It doesn’t and that’s Earl’s point. That would be the best way for them to have any standing, but it just doesn’t line up.
      - EarlKing 4y ago
        It wasn't, actually. I made that comment before I read the complaint. The statutory basis of their complaint is that Facebook constitutes some specie of nuisance, hence my later comment that even if we took their factual assertions at face value the charge asserted should be void for vagueness.
    - EarlKing 4y ago
      Having read the complaint, no, it doesn't have relevance here (obviously I made that claim prior to reading the complaint), but what they do assert is even worse: They're trying to claim that use of Facebook, Tiktok, etc and consequent behavioral issues among students constitutes a nuisance. The phrase "void for vagueness" would seem to apply here.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
- shkkmo 4y ago
  Where are you getting this "duty of care" thing? That doesn't seem remotely similar to any of the legal arguments discussed in the article. > You wouldn't be suing the USPS or AT&T for allowing the same thing, would you? Those aren't analogous companies at all. Social media companies don't just deliver content, they promote specific content and optimize thier platforms to increase engagement.
  - ehhthing 4y ago
    I assumed this lawsuit was a negligence one. It's not, it's under public nuisance laws. I still don't understand how the school board should get damages paid given they aren't "the public", and they didn't have any of their rights violated. > Those aren't analogous companies at all. Social media companies don't just deliver content, they promote specific content and optimize thier platforms to increase engagement. A school investigates all threats equally regardless of how they are communicated. Whether they are mailed, sent via SMS, called in or sent on social media should not matter.
whatshisface 4y ago
>these social media companies are employing behavioral scientists Companies have employed behavioral scientists for at least a century now. Cigarette companies never got in trouble for hiring psychologists to devise their advertising (addiction triggers), but for the damage their products did. They could invent a new rule against exploiting human psychology but that does not have a precedent of illegality.
- SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
  Cigarette companies were explicitly banned from advertising to children for this exact reason. I don’t think this is a good example, because if they’re comparable then social media should be banned from advertising to children also.
  - whatshisface 4y ago
    If hiring psychologists was why they were banned from advertising to children, why can Mattel advertise to children?
    - lazyasciiart 4y ago
      For the reason that their products are harmful, not that they had hired psychologists.
      - whatshisface 4y ago
        Yeah that's my whole point, psychological mass manipulation is legal.
- sitkack 4y ago
  > never got in trouble for hiring psychologists to devise their advertising When is the last time you saw Joe Camel?
Calvin02 4y ago
I think the premise that no social media = no depressed kids is pretty weak, imo. Also, what's social media? Are messaging apps not social media? This feels like another one of those 'violent video games are bad' arguments.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  > I think the premise that no social media = no depressed kids is pretty weak, imo. That's clearly not the premise. > Also, what's social media? Are messaging apps not social media? The lawsuit makes specific claims about specific behavior by specific companies.
HideousKojima 4y ago
How would the school board sue drug cartels or hobos? Those are only slightly more ridiculous than suing TikTok.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  Seattle schools could sue the Uncle Ike's pot shop chain that operates openly and mostly legally in Seattle.
LarryMullins 4y ago
I think it would be a bit odd to see a school district suing drug dealers. Seeing as weed is legal in Seattle, could/should the Seattle public schools sue local [state-]legal weed stores for selling product that will inevitably find their way into the hands of teenagers? I suppose they could, but it would be surprising to see. This said, I have a special hatred for TikTok so I wish the Seattle schools good luck in their crazy endeavor.
- Retric 4y ago
  Yet, South Carolina schools suing e-cigarette manufactures: https://www.postandcourier.com/columbia/more-sc-school-districts-are-suing-e-cigarette-makers-and-even-more-could-join-them/article_df2bd3ee-a9d2-11eb-ab34-a32cd295bc89.html https://www.postandcourier.com/columbia/more-sc-school-distr... Legally it kind of makes sense because schools have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of children. Thus kids vaping or checking TickTok at school is a problem for the school system. But they also list “increased security staff time spent addressing discipline and supervision issues, and increased counselor time spent speaking to addicted students about this epidemic.”
- shkkmo 4y ago
  I think if there were evidence of targeting children with advertising, deliberately locating near schools or other intent, then yes, you could see a lawsuit.
mardifoufs 4y ago
The difference is that we aren't talking about drug addiction here? And I mean drawing parallels between hard drugs and social media is just a matter of opinion. Like if you replace basically any possible debate with with homeless people and drugs you would probably get people asking for something to be done, so yeah I guess?
philwelch 4y ago
If homeless people were legally confined in some government-run institution and were able to use drugs inside that institution, how would you react? I would react by saying that the government institution that confines our homeless people is doing a shitty job. I also say SPS is doing a shitty job.

by xrd 4y ago

ehhthing 4y ago

I am not a lawyer, but this seems like the school board have no standing (in the legal sense) to be filing this lawsuit. I do not believe that social media companies have the duty of care to the school boards to maintain kids' mental health. Some of the things in the lawsuit are just stupid like arguing that social media causes them to need to do investigations into threats and such. You wouldn't be suing the USPS or AT&T for allowing the same thing, would you? Sure these aren't the same thing as social media, but whether a duty of care exists should be a relatively similar analysis.

poulsbohemian 4y ago
>seems like the school board have no standing That was exactly my reaction. If Bob Ferguson (WA AG) wanted to pursue such a case, he / the state would have standing - and as far as I know, the school board asking the state and getting other school boards involved in such a case would be the more powerful approach. This is Seattle though, with its particular political leanings, and/or it could also be a bit of a Hail Mary - do this to show frustration in hopes that the AG or similar parties will take action.
- DueDilligence 4y ago
  .. chiming in: Bob has indeed been looped in since this suit was on the table four years ago - and participated in person to the 3 meetings where this suit was on the agenda. I have heard his comments and discussion first hand. I know there to be at least two of his staff handling this suit. It is common for these types of well-executed lawsuits where the named-party is a public entity - for the relevant legislative office to NOT present a public statement until several weeks after filing the suit. I can assure you that the AG or representative thereof, will do so in the coming weeks.
  - poulsbohemian 4y ago
    Doesn't surprise me given his previous suit against Facebook (IE: The reach of social media is an active concern of the state). Likewise, Bob and I have mutual friends and this very much sounds like the kind of thing he'd have the pulse on. For that matter, it sounds like you have some hands-on info here - maybe you and I run in the same meatspace circles ;-D.
EarlKing 4y ago
Literally this. You'd have to twist yourself into a legal pretzel to somehow claim that because teachers act in loco parentis for children in their care that now somehow their supervisors have power of attorney over their charges. This is one of those cases where the idiots involved deserve to get hit with a huge fine for filing a frivolous lawsuit. No, not the school district, but those involved. Personally.
- shkkmo 4y ago
  How does "power of attorney" have any relevance here? The argument is simply that the school district has suffered damages from specific behavior by the social media companies, that has nothing to with an ability to make decisions on the student's behalf.
  - tomsthumb 4y ago
    >How does “power of attorney” have any relevance here? It doesn’t and that’s Earl’s point. That would be the best way for them to have any standing, but it just doesn’t line up.
    - EarlKing 4y ago
      It wasn't, actually. I made that comment before I read the complaint. The statutory basis of their complaint is that Facebook constitutes some specie of nuisance, hence my later comment that even if we took their factual assertions at face value the charge asserted should be void for vagueness.
  - EarlKing 4y ago
    Having read the complaint, no, it doesn't have relevance here (obviously I made that claim prior to reading the complaint), but what they do assert is even worse: They're trying to claim that use of Facebook, Tiktok, etc and consequent behavioral issues among students constitutes a nuisance. The phrase "void for vagueness" would seem to apply here.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
shkkmo 4y ago
Where are you getting this "duty of care" thing? That doesn't seem remotely similar to any of the legal arguments discussed in the article. > You wouldn't be suing the USPS or AT&T for allowing the same thing, would you? Those aren't analogous companies at all. Social media companies don't just deliver content, they promote specific content and optimize thier platforms to increase engagement.
- ehhthing 4y ago
  I assumed this lawsuit was a negligence one. It's not, it's under public nuisance laws. I still don't understand how the school board should get damages paid given they aren't "the public", and they didn't have any of their rights violated. > Those aren't analogous companies at all. Social media companies don't just deliver content, they promote specific content and optimize thier platforms to increase engagement. A school investigates all threats equally regardless of how they are communicated. Whether they are mailed, sent via SMS, called in or sent on social media should not matter.

whatshisface 4y ago

>these social media companies are employing behavioral scientists Companies have employed behavioral scientists for at least a century now. Cigarette companies never got in trouble for hiring psychologists to devise their advertising (addiction triggers), but for the damage their products did. They could invent a new rule against exploiting human psychology but that does not have a precedent of illegality.

SamoyedFurFluff 4y ago
Cigarette companies were explicitly banned from advertising to children for this exact reason. I don’t think this is a good example, because if they’re comparable then social media should be banned from advertising to children also.
- whatshisface 4y ago
  If hiring psychologists was why they were banned from advertising to children, why can Mattel advertise to children?
  - lazyasciiart 4y ago
    For the reason that their products are harmful, not that they had hired psychologists.
    - whatshisface 4y ago
      Yeah that's my whole point, psychological mass manipulation is legal.
sitkack 4y ago
> never got in trouble for hiring psychologists to devise their advertising When is the last time you saw Joe Camel?

Calvin02 4y ago

I think the premise that no social media = no depressed kids is pretty weak, imo. Also, what's social media? Are messaging apps not social media? This feels like another one of those 'violent video games are bad' arguments.

shkkmo 4y ago
> I think the premise that no social media = no depressed kids is pretty weak, imo. That's clearly not the premise. > Also, what's social media? Are messaging apps not social media? The lawsuit makes specific claims about specific behavior by specific companies.

HideousKojima 4y ago

How would the school board sue drug cartels or hobos? Those are only slightly more ridiculous than suing TikTok.

LarryMullins 4y ago
Seattle schools could sue the Uncle Ike's pot shop chain that operates openly and mostly legally in Seattle.

LarryMullins 4y ago

I think it would be a bit odd to see a school district suing drug dealers. Seeing as weed is legal in Seattle, could/should the Seattle public schools sue local [state-]legal weed stores for selling product that will inevitably find their way into the hands of teenagers? I suppose they could, but it would be surprising to see. This said, I have a special hatred for TikTok so I wish the Seattle schools good luck in their crazy endeavor.

Retric 4y ago
Yet, South Carolina schools suing e-cigarette manufactures: https://www.postandcourier.com/columbia/more-sc-school-districts-are-suing-e-cigarette-makers-and-even-more-could-join-them/article_df2bd3ee-a9d2-11eb-ab34-a32cd295bc89.html https://www.postandcourier.com/columbia/more-sc-school-distr... Legally it kind of makes sense because schools have a responsibility to ensure the welfare of children. Thus kids vaping or checking TickTok at school is a problem for the school system. But they also list “increased security staff time spent addressing discipline and supervision issues, and increased counselor time spent speaking to addicted students about this epidemic.”
shkkmo 4y ago
I think if there were evidence of targeting children with advertising, deliberately locating near schools or other intent, then yes, you could see a lawsuit.

mardifoufs 4y ago

The difference is that we aren't talking about drug addiction here? And I mean drawing parallels between hard drugs and social media is just a matter of opinion. Like if you replace basically any possible debate with with homeless people and drugs you would probably get people asking for something to be done, so yeah I guess?

philwelch 4y ago

If homeless people were legally confined in some government-run institution and were able to use drugs inside that institution, how would you react? I would react by saying that the government institution that confines our homeless people is doing a shitty job. I also say SPS is doing a shitty job.